brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:More fun rule proposals
|content= Hi, I know this is probably getting a bit tiresome with the amount of policies, votes, etc going on lately, so I'll try and be to the point. Listed below are a couple of ideas for changes in relations to a few things around here: * Complete articles- in the past, any amount of redlinks on complete articles are ok. I propose that we have it so that complete articles are like the other two standards, and cannot be tagged (or need to be tagged) with any maintenance templates, including . To me, having redlinks on a complete article makes it look... incomplete. The linked pages don't have to be perfect, just present and not nonsense/spam etc. * WIP's- I think we should change the policy on this a little. The template currently reads "If no changes have been made by the editor above for over three weeks, this template may be removed.". This means, a user can keep the page for an indefinite period, as long as they make one edit every three weeks. I suggest instead that we change it to "If this template has been on this article for over one week, it may be removed.". Because really, it shouldn't take that long to get an article up to a good standard or completely rewritten. Our longest page (Rahi) is 47, 406 bytes, and we can WIP almost indefinitely, but take Wookieepedia for example, where their longest page (Wedge Antilles) is 585, 390 bytes, and they can only WIP for 2 days in most cases. I also suggest that we have a certain period of time (eg a week or so) where the same user cannot re-WIP the page, so they just don't re-WIP it as soon as the time period's up. Just some ideas, feel free to comment below. Thanks for reading, 08:51, July 30, 2010 (UTC) * I Completely agree on all points you have made, on point 2 perhaps 7 days is even to long, I would bring that down to 3 or 4 days. Seems to be ample time to sort an article out the way you desire, and anything more you wanted to add, well its still there to be edited. Not being able to wip a page for a week after already doing so, sounds like a good span of time Gladiatoring 09:07, July 30, 2010 (UTC) * I agree with the Complete Articles bit, but I disagree with you on the WIP bit. Maybe for the work in progress, we should do the 3 weeks, but remove it if substantial edits have not been made in that time. --[[User:Lcawte|'Lewis Cawte']] (Talk - Contact) 09:38, July 30, 2010 (UTC) *These both sound good. For the WIP pages, you could simply date whatever time span you settle on from the time the template was added, rather than from the last edit on the page, to avoid any possible gaming of the system. [[User:Sonny Burnett|'Sonny Burnett']] [[User talk:Sonny Burnett|'Talk']] 11:46, July 30, 2010 (UTC) ::Agreed. Sometimes WIP's get out of hand. [[User:GameGear360|'GG ']][[User talk:GameGear360|'360']] 11:49, July 30, 2010 (UTC) *I agree about the WIP's, someone might want to edit that page and not be able to for a long period of time it is "If NO edits have been made IN THREE WEEKS". I think it would be O.K. if you could ONLY have it on for a period of time UNDER three weeks no matter how many edits have been made. [[User:Agent Charge|'Agent']] [[User talk:Agent Charge|'Charge: ']] No Crime Stands on Brickipedia 07:38, August 1, 2010 (UTC) Agree on WIP. Not on CAs since you are "complaining" that they are too similar to GAs. 00:06, August 2, 2010 (UTC) }}